Why do pastors receive a tax exemption for housing?

By Joe Carter
Nov 25, 2013

A federal judge recently ruled that an Internal Revenue Service exemption that gives clergy tax-free housing allowances is unconstitutional. In her ruling U.S. District Court Judge Crabb claims that, “Some might view a rule against preferential treatment as exhibiting hostility toward religion, but equality should never be mistaken for hostility.”

Despite the judge’s claim, appealing to “equality” is not enough to make the action non-hostile nor is it in line with previous court decisions. Not only has the Supreme Court previously stated that the Establishment Clause prohibits hostility against religion as much as it prohibits the establishment of a state religion, it has also noted that its “precedents plainly contemplate that on occasion some advancement of religion will result from governmental action.”

But aside from the question of constitutionality, the clergy exemption raises a question that many people — whether religious or not — are likely to be wondering: Why exactly do ministers receive a tax exemption for their housing allowance?

To answer the question we must first consider how taxation of church property, including clergy housing, has historically been considered.

Since at least the time when Joseph served in Pharaoh’s Egypt, religious property has been exempt from certain forms of taxation. (Genesis 47:26) The practice continued in the Roman Empire and through medieval Europe and was part of the common law, which America adopted from England. The common law granted tax exemptions to established churches and, through the equity law tradition, to all churches. From the 15th century to the 19th century, most pastors lived in the parsonage, a house provided by the church. Housing was thus a form of non-cash payment that was exempt from taxation since the parsonage was church property.

By the early 20th century, though, both clergy housing and taxation had changed considerably. So in 1921, Congress passed the Revenue Act, which exempted from the gross income of ministers the rental value of any “dwelling house and appurtenances thereof” provided by a church as a part of clergy compensation. This parsonage exemption, however, applied only to ministers who lived on property owned by their church and disadvantaged ministers whose churches provided a housing allowance rather than a church-owned parsonage. In 1954, Congress amended the tax code to allow ministers to exempt a portion of their income to the extent used by the minister for housing. According to the Senate Report, the purpose of this addition was to eliminate the disparity in the tax code between ministers who lived in a church-owned parsonage and those who were given a stipend with which to secure housing.

The clergy, of course, are not the only ones to receive such an exemption. Congress included several categories of tax-free housing allowances to demonstrate a willingness to give tax breaks to classes of taxpayers who have little choice about their personal living space, such as members of the military, members of the Peace Corps, members of the Foreign Service, etc. As Peter J. Reilly explains,

Whether the employer provides a cash allowance or a home, each benefit serves the same purpose; that is, often the employer’s needs affect the living space needs of its employees. Many times, these classes of employees frequently relocate, thus preventing them from settling down and hindering long term close friendships. Further, the employers frequently require them to use their homes to conduct employer business. Additionally, the employee’s place of service may not be desirable. These employees must reside where their employer requires and must frequently use their residence for employer business. Some employees sacrifice amenities that most citizens take for granted, such as long term stability in one locale and privacy.

The constitutionality of the parsonage exemption would be difficult to challenge since it has been encoded in statutory law for over almost a hundred years. That is why critics of clergy exemptions have focused on the housing allowance.

The obvious counter might appear to be for churches to simply buy a parsonage and directly provide housing for their ministers. But this ignores the fact there may be theological reasons based on church polity for not providing a parsonage. As Justin Butterfield, Hiram Sasser, and Reed Smith explain in an article for The Texas Review of Law and Politics, a “congregation’s choice to offer a housing allowance rather than allow the minister to live in a church-owned dwelling is not one of mere accounting or convenience, but rather one rich with theological and ecclesiastical underpinnings.”

The parsonage exemption, for instance, provides a preference for institutional churches whose ecclesiastical properties are owned by a central governing body (e.g., Roman Catholic). Smaller, independent, local churches often have less money to provide a parsonage. It also presents a bias in favor of wealthy, established churches over younger congregations and church startups. For instance, how could a congregation that can’t even afford a church building afford to buy a parsonage?

Because of this reality, the courts cannot allow the parsonage exemption and exclude the housing exemption without showing preference for certain religious groups over others.

Both the parsonage and pastor housing exemption are part of a legal tradition that serve to prevent the entanglement of the state in ecclesiological concerns. By her decision, though, Judge Crabb has — albeit unintentionally — incorporated a form of denominational favoritism into the tax code. In her attempt to prevent an imaginary violation of the Establishment Clause she has inadvertently created a real infringement.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Faith, Ministry, Citizenship, Church and State, Religious Liberty,

6 Comments (post your own) feed

1 On Nov 26, 2013, at 1:47am, Jasper Abbott wrote:

Mr Carter, I would like to point out that the section that the Judge struck down, 26 USC 107, covers both the parsonage exception and housing allowance. Thus, the decision does not create a situation where the parsonage exception survives and the housing allowance is disallowed.

2 On Nov 26, 2013, at 5:21pm, James Thompson wrote:

When I first heard of this ruling I was torn over whether it was a good or bad decision. In the end I must conclude that I believe it to be a poor ruling that clearly displays a hostility towards religious institutions. What led me to this conclusion was the reality that the provision which was struck down displays no more inherently discriminatory basis than do the mortgage, tuition and other tax breaks. Not all tax breaks can be taken by all individuals for various reasons and that creates a certain amount of inequality, but not one that is unconstitutional. Perhaps the better ruling would have been an advisory one that sought to curb potential or actual abuses.

3 On Dec 3, 2013, at 5:28pm, Verlyn verbrugge wrote:

This ruling concerns income taxation. It should be noted that ministers ARE required to pay Social Security at the individual level for the rental value of a parsonage or a housing allowance. So,it is not as if that benefit has no “taxation” implications.

4 On Dec 4, 2013, at 7:29am, Verlyn Verbrugge wrote:

For people who may not know, I do think it is important to point out that either the value of living in a parsonage or the amount of a housing allowance (whatever an ordained pastor gets) is subject to Social Security “taxes”—and at the individual level (12.6 %, I think, rather than about 7%). So it is not that the recipient of “free rent” in a parsonage or a housing allowance gets a completely free ride.

5 On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:47pm, Karla Shaw wrote:

Just a point of clarification. Ministers pay Self Employment Tax (which is SS) at the 15.4% rate of their entire income which includes their housing. Unlike other professions, where half of Social Security is covered by the employer, most clergy pay the full amount (unless the religious organization offers to pay this). This exists, as their are some religions that disagree with SS so, clergy have the option of opted out.

6 On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:02pm, James wrote:

Jasper (#1 above) The ruling only applies to rental allowances (i.e. cash payments designated as a rental/housing allowance) under IRC Sec. 107(1).  It does not apply to parsonage exemptions (i.e. in-king use of a house owned by the church) under IRC Sec. 107(2).  The plaintiffs originally tried to attack both provisions but subsequently decided to go after the housing allowance under 107(2) only,  Thus, the judges ruling applies only to cash paid housing allowances.

Post a Comment

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Comments are moderated. Learn how we moderate comments, but here are the highlights:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name.
  2. Comments must be on topic.
  3. Comments are limited to 1000 characters, multiple posts permitted.
  4. Please do not type in ALL CAPS.
  5. We feed name-calling and vulgar language to a really big robot.

By clicking the below Submit button, you express agreement to the Guidelines in their entirety.

You May Also Like

ERLC chairman speaks a pastor’s perspective

By Staff - Jun 27, 2013

The church, more than any other institution, must constantly address issues of ethics and morality — which Richard Piles understands as well as anybody in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Piles, pastor of First Baptist Church in Camden, became chairman of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission’s trustees in May 2012 after serving on the board for four years in various capacities.…

Read More

When to speak up and when to submit

By Melissa Kruger - Jul 30, 2014

Submission. It's a word loaded with a powder keg of emotions. We live in a culture more accustomed to questioning authority than submitting to it. Those in leadership are often viewed with mistrust rather than respect.…

Read More

High Court to weigh abortion clinic buffers

By Erin Roach - Jun 26, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted an appeal of a Massachusetts law that restricts pro-life advocates from standing within 35 feet of an abortion clinic.

A federal appeals court in January upheld the abortion clinic buffer zone law, saying it protected the rights of patients while also ensuring pro-life advocates could exercise their First Amendment rights.…

Read More